Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the one, outnumbered Republican-sympathetic co-host of ABC's The View, introduced Gov. Sarah Palin at a rally in Tampa, Florida today, and let the media have it. Reports the New York Times:
"Instead of the issues, they are focused, fixated on her wardrobe," Ms. Hasselbeck said of the news media, drawing loud cheers from the crowd. "Now, with everything going on in the world, seems a bit odd. But let me tell you, this is deliberately sexist. I know you know that."
After taking the microphone, Ms. Palin hinted that she agreed with Ms. Hasselbeck. "The double standard here," she said. "Gosh, we don’t even want to waste our time."
Hasselbeck added: “I’m most impressed by her accessories, you know, like the flag pin she wears in honor of her son and our military — men and women — fighting abroad. And they fight for our every right to be here today.”
She started by joking she was honored to be there, but then "I was pretty much excited to talk for a full five minutes without being interrupted."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How Do You Pronounce the Word - NOLW?
October 26, 2008 - 21:39 ET by dodecahedronOk. I'll say it first. Palin/Hasselback 2012.
Does anyone know what the National Organization for Women will be called now that they've been exposed as only supporting liberal women? They had an opportunity to help put the first woman in the White House and they balked. ("Oh we didn't mean ALL women, just women who support liberal views")
The obvious name change is NOLW - National Organization of Liberal Women. Marketing that word will likely prove to be a challenge.
Only LOSERS Reply to Their Own Posts...
October 26, 2008 - 21:57 ET by dodecahedronHow about: 'Liberal Organization of Sexually Effeminated Repressed Sisters - LOSERS'
I was thinking of a
October 27, 2008 - 00:09 ET by MazziI was thinking of a different "L" word for the NOLW. Think Rosie O'Donnell (I know - it hurts) and Ellen Degenerate. Those are not liberals, they are radicals. And they insist on dragging all of us into their bedrooms {shudder} and then demanding that we accept it.
I am no homophobe, but for God's sake - have some dignity folks. Shut up about your sex life. It's no one's business!
"Fool me once - shame on you... fool me twice - shame on me." ~ my Father
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
I Think You're on to Something...
October 27, 2008 - 00:32 ET by dodecahedronLeague of
Extremely
Strong and
Bold
Independent
Activist
New-age
Sisters.
To paraphrase Howie Carr
October 27, 2008 - 15:36 ET by Davester65To paraphrase Howie Carr "They used to talk about the love that dare not speak its name. These days you can't get it to shut up!
BTW, Elizabeth Hasselbeck must really feel Sarah Palins name. She has to put up with a lot of the same crap and for the same reasons. Not only is she the only conservative on the show, but she's by far the prettiest. Thus according to the libs' she must be a dope.
Mark Levin...
October 27, 2008 - 10:30 ET by MexNobamaCalls them the National Organization of really realy really really UGLY Women..."NORRRRW" which forces one to growl like a dog.
Pretty clever.
So clever
October 27, 2008 - 16:39 ET by j. frank wilsonespecially from such as stud as The Pathetic One...
the liberal gotcha media
October 26, 2008 - 22:20 ET by hirogen73the liberal gotcha media worry to much about what sarah palin is wearing at this time. i read that the clothes she buys will go to the homeless or to the charity or something so she actualy doing a good thing buy buying those clothes at this time and yet they want to make her sound like she seems like a fancy clothes person at this time and that is not true because she is an outsider and a maverick at this time and not a clothes fancy person at this time.
they just saying this because they wont to re-elect barack obama and his socalist people at this time. and he want to give my peace of pie to somebody else at this time and i will not veto for him because he pal around with terorits in his own living at this time.
Anyone have Elisabeth's
October 26, 2008 - 22:32 ET by balboaAnyone have Elisabeth's response to Rush saying that America doesn't want to watch a woman president (HRC) get old and wrinkly before their eyes?
Can't have the quote that never happened...
October 26, 2008 - 22:42 ET by ScrapironBalboa: Democrats destroyed (Hillary) one of their own (because she wasn't one of the boys) like a pack of wild dog's and now look for a quote by someone who never made the statement. Maybe Michelle O made the statement and you're confused. She ate several people's piece of the pie ($447 worth) for an afternoon snack so anything is possible with an 'O'. Kind of like running someone down over a clothing bill and flying a large jet to Hawaii and back, spreading the polution around, on personal business. Did he reinburse the DNC for the cost? How come his wife and children never visit their white grandma? Must be a lot of hate or racism in that family.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
scrapiron:
October 27, 2008 - 09:55 ET by j. frank wilsonYou are thoroughly confused. What does hate and racism have to do with it? You can't leave a man's family alone?
You are one sick puppy...
Backfire
October 26, 2008 - 22:57 ET by ShanghaiRayYou know what? I have the sneaky suspicion that the MSM will be the primary cause of Obama's ultimate defeat. That will be the Big Irony of this election. After all the innuendo, slander, smear, lies, deceit, misreporting, non-reporting they have heaped upon the American public their chickens will come home to roost and crap all over them just like they deserve.
Come November 5th, I'm either going to laughing my ass off or crying buckets. Hopefully, the former. Either way, the MSM will either welcome us all to the New O Party or call us a bunch of racists and idiots who fell for the Republican attack machine's rhetoric.
Sarah's skirts are from Alaska
October 26, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Lame CherryI was just listening to Sarahcuda and she said the clothes were returned, some were donated and she was back to wearing what she always wears in Alaskan store wear.
Honestly, John McCain has been betrayed by these "experts" he has handling things and by what they have done on issues from jumping ship to this wardrobe idea is not in the least professional.
Ask anyone here and that includes liberals if any candidate was told, "Oh we are going to spend over a hundred grande on dresses" if they would blink and say, "Are you NUTS! This will be a story the press will run with."
So who is betraying John McCain I would like these moles names to have them posted here as they are working for Obama in what they are pulling.
I noticed no one has brought up though the feed bill which Obama's group has been running up. It is like half a million each time it shows up like the Clinton's. These Democrats must be eating caviar sandwhichs made with caviar bread and caviar spread.
Great management of budget in blowing through money.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
As usual you are spot on,
October 27, 2008 - 00:02 ET by MazziAs usual you are spot on, LC! The betrayal is shameful and I would love to see the traitors found and dealt with.
The clothes were a slightly dumb move, but on the other hand, who could have thought that the media, of all people, could bring up wardrobe costs. I would LOVE to know what Katie Couric or Barbara Walters spend on clothes. I guarantee it's way more than $50K a year. I never cease to be amazed at the hypocrites.
$50k being the amount of clothes that were not to be returned immediately. Remember, these clothes and accoutrements were bought for Palin by staffers, and as any woman could tell you, there is no possible way that all of it would A) fit or B) be her style or C) look good. In fact, I am impressed that 1/3 of it worked. I have about a 20% sucess rate when buying clothes without trying them on.
Regardless - it was a careless move. And the spin is insane. I have heard "alleged journalists" say (with a straight face) that this was "taxpayer" money. I mean, I guess the donors are mostly taxpayers, but the implication is practically a bold-faced lie.
"Fool me once - shame on you... fool me twice - shame on me." ~ my Father
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
I have about a 20% sucess
October 27, 2008 - 00:44 ET by Dan The Man 2I have about a 20% sucess rate when buying clothes without trying them on - My wife shops for me, and I usually wear what she buys w/o question. My usual wardrobe is levis, a shirt with pockets, tennis shoes. No jewelry watches or the like. You know I just look like your average street bum.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
"I have heard "alleged
October 27, 2008 - 01:06 ET by ckc1227"I have heard "alleged journalists" say (with a straight face) that this
was "taxpayer" money. I mean, I guess the donors are mostly taxpayers,
but the implication is practically a bold-faced lie."
I'm sure they'll be reporting on all the taxpayer dollars that have been funneled by Obama to the likes of Wright, Ayers, Phleger, and many other anti-America radicals any day now.
Oh, wait, silly me, those things aren't important. Much more important things to worry about this election period...like Palin's clothes, especially her shoes.
Obama's Economic plan: more taxes, more spending, more regulation. Prosperity here we come.
LC
October 27, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Secret ConservativeI read that they know who the McCain staffers are who leaked this, and they are staffers who are P.O'd because they recommended that Palin do the ABC and CBS interviews where she was presented in the worst possible light, so the campaign stopped listening to these staffers.
I gotta tell you, though, until I see the actual receipts for everything, I don't believe the $150K number. Palin insists that the only clothes she was given were outfits for her and her family for the CONVENTION, and that's it. Now I know that clothes at Saks and Neimans are expensive, but we're talking about a few outfits for her and her family. That would add up to over $21,000 PER PERSON, and Baby Trig probably got his outfits at the Carter's outlet. This would raise the per person cost to $25,000. This doesn't pass the smell test. Reminds me of the $300,000 outfit that the MSM accused Cindy McCain of wearing at the convention - which instead turned out to be a $3,000 dress and fake jewelry.
And BTW, for those questioning how much Michelle Obama spends on clothes, or Katie Couric or Barbara Walters - their clothes are GIFTS, in exchange for them wearing the clothes publicly and plugging the designers. I'll bet Michelle, Katie, Barbara and the rest have NO IDEA what their clothes cost - because they cost them NOTHING.
Up until today I have held
October 26, 2008 - 23:50 ET by Captain RepusUp until today I have held out a morsel of hope for my countrymen to come to their senses and see through the brainwashing we have been put through by the MSM, and use their heads for something other than a hatrack, but after an all-day dose of continuous media campaigning for the messiah I finally surrender.
For the first time in my adult life I am no longer proud of my country. It reminds me of the 1990 election where I saw the Clintons as worthless con artists and immoral scum, but it took over 5 years of them sliming my White House for the media to finally be forced into exposing them, only to orchestrate a rehabilitation campaign to make my idiotic countrymen suddenly decide that rape, blackmail, perjury and sexual harrassment in the workplace are minor indescretions are no longer important.
I only wish now that Hillary had won the nomination so that 1) the White House furniture could be returned to where it was stolen from, and 2) we could return to immoral leadership instead of anti-American socialistic rule for 4 years.
Have No Fear
October 27, 2008 - 00:14 ET by ShanghaiRayMcCain will ultimately prevail. I'm so sure of it I'm heading right over to the Irish betting site paddypower and place a 1,000euro bet on it which will reap me 6,500euro in return.
Ms. Hasselbeck is clueless:
October 27, 2008 - 10:01 ET by j. frank wilsonIt is not an "obsession" with what Gov. Palin wears. That's just spin - along with the "donate to charity" B.S. It's the idea that the RNC spent $150K on it.
Was President Hoover out there buying a custom made tuxedo?
People are losing their jobs, their homes, seeking their retirement savings wiped out. And the idiots running the McCain Campaign are absolutely out of touch with reality. Of course, we already knew that when they selected Gov. Palin, but this clothing story is just more proof.
j. frank,
October 27, 2008 - 10:13 ET by R D HelmIt's the idea that the RNC spent $150K on it.
So damn what?
Its the RNC's money, and they can spend it any way they choose.
Do you think that if the RNC didn't spend it, then somehow you are going to benefit?
Do you think people should be automatically entitled to other people's money simply because they don't have any?
What if your next door neighbor decides he doesn't have enough stuff and comes over to your house, puts a gun to your head and insists that you give him some of yours?
BTW-Who are you to tell other peole how to spend their money?
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
BTW-Who are you to tell
October 27, 2008 - 10:21 ET by Jack BauerComes naturally to hard-left Democrats, socialists, Marxists, and assorted leftoids.
$150,000 spent DAILY on
October 27, 2008 - 16:05 ET by TruthMonger$150,000 spent DAILY on wardrobes, spas, cocaine, ride pimpin - all by Obama lovers: rappers, pro athletes, hollywood actors and elites
and jfrank could give less of a sh*t about that
as usual the dudes full of it
Government is the "greedy capitalism" of marxists
R. D. Helm:
October 27, 2008 - 11:59 ET by j. frank wilsonThe point is there is nothing sexist about having an opinion about how the RNC spends its money. It was stupid to blow 150 iron men on Gov. Palin's clothes. That's just a fact. Pointing it out isn't sexist - and Ms. Hannelbeck saying it doesn't make it so.
That's the point. The Republicans have proven time and time again during this election cycle that they can't run an effective national presidential campaign. This is just more proof of that.
I'm not telling anybody how to spend or not spend money. The fact that Sen. McCain is scraping the bottom of the barrel for money to put on television ads, raising the white flag of surrender by pulling out of states because he doesn't have the funds to contest them, Republican candidates for the House and Senate are running out of money (including that nut from Minnesota, what a darn shame that is!) - facts. Cool beans for me, actually...
Gee Frank
October 27, 2008 - 12:42 ET by BlondeTell me again how much The One's greek temple cost?
Why are you lefties so bloody interested in Sarah Palin's clothes? Some kind of fetish, or what?
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
Blonde:
October 27, 2008 - 13:09 ET by j. frank wilsonNobody cares about the stage set - or the columns the Republicans used in 2004.
It is interesting that the McCain Palin Campaign is completely out of touch with reality. One hundred fifty large on a few weeks' worth of clothing? Money well spent, indeed...
Got it, frankie!
October 27, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Blonde"Nobody cares about the stage set".
But you are totally twisted over the Palin clothing budget.
Sheesh, twisted leaps of liberal illogic on display for all to see.
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
Blonde:
October 27, 2008 - 15:18 ET by j. frank wilsonWithin the law the RNC can spend its money any way it wants. If they would rather purchase expensive clothes than television ads, that is their business. We, however, are permitted to point out that it is stupid. Not sexist as Ms. Hasselbeck claims - plain ordinary everyday stupid.
You brought up a stage set. It is a meaninless Sheer Insannity talking point. Just as so many of his are, of course. And yours, as well...
Of course, frankie
October 27, 2008 - 15:30 ET by BlondeI should have known you'd devolve to inane blather, as usual. "Sheer Insanity"....neener, neener, neener.
Grow up.
Next time, why don't you try something original....like "my dad can beat up your dad!!!!".
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
blonde -- It matters to
October 27, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Jack Bauerblonde -- It matters to them because she looks fantastic, so it's important to slime Governor Palin personally. Simple as that.
The funny thing is it makes them look small and petty and rather crazy.
Jack
October 27, 2008 - 13:47 ET by cocodrieExactly right. No matter how much the DNC spends on their women, they still look like - Well I'll stop there - Chris Norman and Ken Shepherd are chewing out tejanodiablo for bad language right now so I better behave.
Hillary's dozens of
October 27, 2008 - 13:59 ET by Jack BauerHillary's dozens of tailor-made designer pantsuits cost $6000 a pop.
Sarah Palin looks great in something from Wal-Mart - she's just one of those gals who look good in anything. They hate that.
But to be fair to Lady Clinton, she has been very respectful about Palin.
Geez, Jack
October 27, 2008 - 15:08 ET by BlondeWho knew? Six grand a pop? For that?
I learn something new every day, here.
The whole thing is laughable, particularly the knots of histrionic hand wringing.
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
Good evening Blonde
October 27, 2008 - 16:41 ET by cocodrieI thought you knew. She gets charged by the yard, Takes a lot of cloth to cover the areas involved. And believe me we are better off if every inch is covered.
blonde -- yeah I was
October 28, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Jack Bauerblonde -- yeah I was gob-smacked, as we say, when I heard that too!
That's what her couture designer charges normally, but I believe she gets them for free.
I seriously have no problem with women politicos spending as much as they need to look great, because they ALL are judged to an unfair standard compared to males.
The reason everyone ridiculed Edwards for his preening haircut was that a MAN spent $400. That's just sissy. Every man knows that by instinct.
Hey Jack
October 27, 2008 - 18:34 ET by MrShy"But to be fair to Lady Clinton, she has been very respectful about Palin."
There's a very good reason she's being respectful to Palin. I would venture to guess it has something to do with a long-term strategy here. As we all know she's hoping for a Repub miracle next month, and she also doesn't want to rattle her pro-woman's voting bass in 2012 by being confrontational with a fellow female candidate.
There might also be a few grains of sincerity here, too, without any political agenda (can't believe I'm saying that! :p)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
j. frank,
October 28, 2008 - 09:01 ET by R D HelmThe Republicans have proven time and time again during this election
cycle that they can't run an effective national presidential campaign.
LOL, I'll have to concede that point.
Ya got me. :-)
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
HEY..Frank..Dave..We AGREE!!!
October 28, 2008 - 09:14 ET by TheSterWE AGREE!!!
We Agree. Period. Money.
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Ster,
October 28, 2008 - 09:17 ET by R D HelmAnd you won't believe how painful that was for me to say.
LOL-Nearly choked up my sausage biscuit. :-O
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
Dave...LOL!!!!
October 28, 2008 - 09:27 ET by TheSterNoooo....comment.
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
RD Helm:
October 28, 2008 - 10:00 ET by j. frank wilsonAbout Wednesday of next week half the country is going to be pretty happy and half the country pretty upset.
We will all be better off if we all get behind the winner and start working to resolve the very serious problems facing this country and this world.
The Karl Rove 50% + 1 vote strategy may win elections, but it makes it almost impossible to govern. That's why the Bush Administration tried to rule. It just didn't work.
We will all be better off if we start looking for areas we agree on. You man'd up and said you agree. Thank you!
"It's the idea that the
October 27, 2008 - 10:43 ET by MightyMouth"It's the idea that the RNC spent $150K on it."
Pretty lame argument when you consider how much was spent on the Barackopolis....
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's Showbiz Baby!
October 27, 2008 - 10:53 ET by CrashThink of this as a 50 foot wardrobe trailer on a Hollywood movie set. What does the average film spend on Tom Cruises potential wardrobe? As an actor, when I get a call from wardrobe I'm asked to bring certain articles of clothing to the set. Yet, invariably, I end up wearing an outfit from a rack full of hundreds of new fashion items (purchased for me ... I'm not a big enough star to take them home).
The same thing happens during a major national campaign. What would happen if the candidate came of like a schlub? The clothes selected by wardrobe are coordinated to match the place, the audience, and the other speakers. Sarah didn't "go shopping" as the media would like us all to to believe. I'd bet that 90% of what wardrobe bought for the Palin family will never be worn until after it's sold at auction.
J. Frank Wilson is clueless
October 27, 2008 - 10:45 ET by MexNobamaYou go on a rant about $150,000 worth of clothes.
Americans are losing their homes while Michelle Obama adds girth to her already gigantic ass by feasting upon lobster at the Waldorf.
Americans are losing their jobs while Obama pals around with George Soros and Warren Buffet, who have big plans to widen the gap between rich and poor by destroying the upper middle class once and for all.
You don't get it do you!
Billionaires such as the creeps propping up Obama don't pay taxes. When they talk of spreading the wealth around they are aiming at successful small businesses that fall into the $250,000 plus to about ten million in gross sales.
That is the small independent business tier, and that is where all the conservatives are. Obama wants them dead and he needs fools such as yourself to get all worked up about side issues such as Palin's wardrobe so they won't notice his savage attack upon the upper middle class.
So go ahead. Continue to be foolish.
MexNobama:
October 27, 2008 - 12:02 ET by j. frank wilsonThat wasn't a rant. The multi-paragraph comments on NB are rants. I stated a fact.
Successful small businesses here in the US don't pay taxes - according to the far left-wing Socialist Marxist GAO, the majority of companies in the US pay no taxes. Period.
I'm not worked up over Gov. Palin's clothes. Or Sen. Obama's birth certificate. I do find it amusing that others do, of course. But it isn't hard to keep fools busy...
"I'm not worked up over
October 27, 2008 - 12:08 ET by NL207"I'm not worked up over Gov. Palin's clothes."
-- a lie. If you weren't, you wouldn't mention it at all. What people do with private funds is their own business, as this was.
"Or Sen. Obama's birth certificate."
-- you should be. If the allegations of the existence of a British Crown Colonial Birth Ceritificate on file on Mombasa, Kenya for BHO are true, then he is Constitutionaly ineligible to be the President.
NL207:
October 27, 2008 - 12:35 ET by j. frank wilsonStill trying to figure out that birth certificate thing, huh? Like why you can't find the seal because it's on the back and you're looking at the front? Or why the signature is stamped and not an original? Because the Registrar has better things to do? Kind of like when Sec. Rumsfeld used an autopen to sign letters to the military's next of kin - couldn't be bothered to handsign them.
The vast leftwing birth certificate conspiracy has clouded men's minds in Hawaii - it's all a huge chicane...beware!
I do find it amusing that the best the right wingnutz can come up with is blame the refs - it's all the MSM's fault! Sexism - to have the nerve to suggest Gov. Palin isn't qualified to be President of these United States. And for Ms. Hasselbeck to make stuff up to defend her - just as Gov. Palin makes stuff up to provide reasons to vote for her ticket...
Did Sen. Obama use a time machine to get his birth announcement in the local paper?
Why do you suppose the
October 27, 2008 - 13:43 ET by KarmaWhy do you suppose the majority of companies in the US pay no taxes? Here's your chance to be honest, Mr. Wilson.
Karma:
October 27, 2008 - 15:21 ET by j. frank wilsonBecause over the past decade the laws the Code has been rewritten and rewritten to allow loophole after loophole. Many times my Daddy told me, "Remember, Son, 'profit' is an accounting opinion."
See - both parties believe in welfare. The Democrats believe we should take care of individuals. The Republicans believe welfare should be reserved for corporations.
Mr. Wilson, Your answer
October 27, 2008 - 15:51 ET by KarmaMr. Wilson,
Your answer to my question makes absolutely no sense. Please read this for an explanation to your factual claim that most companies do not pay taxes. My first hand experience supports this scenario. I would support a flat tax to simplify this game the government has designed. Would you?
Conservatives believe in the individual. Communists believe the individual is a rogue who must be forced to conform to the will of the enlightened rulers.
Karma:
October 27, 2008 - 16:52 ET by j. frank wilsonAs I said, profit is an accounting opinion.
Why do income property owners depreciate an appreciating asset? How many small business owners run their lives through their companies and convert personal (non business and therefore taxable) expenses into business expenses?
If conservatives really believe in the individual, why did the Republicans push through so much corporate welfare? Look at the most recent example - the $700,000,000,000 bailout bill. It was stalled until Republican congresspeople got their goodies - including a tax break for manufacturers of wooden arrows!
Have you read "Mr. Smith is Dead?" The Republicans have become past masters at pushing through pork projects within the military budget and allocations. US Military personnal have died because the equipment replacement and reserve funds were looted for pork projects. Who pushed through the air tanker "leasing" scam that Sen. McCain keeps bragging out finding?
pork
October 27, 2008 - 16:57 ET by livingfreeSenator Barney Frank (Dem) MA. has proposed reducing our military by 25%. Isn't he just a sweetheart. Nobody creates more pork then the Dems.
Barney Frank on Glen Beck's
October 27, 2008 - 18:12 ET by semolina_filcherBarney Frank on Glen Beck's radio program Sunday said something once Barack's done with his"changeism" (assuming he wins the presidency). Glen had a hoot about it but he thinks Barney was using a malaproprism for "change and socialism".
Yeah, Mr. Wilson. I heard you before.
October 27, 2008 - 18:03 ET by KarmaProfit is an accounting opinion. You're Daddys' opinions were as bad as yours it seems. Anyway, I'll try one more time.
Why do most companies not pay taxes on their profit, if any?
As to your other nonsense:
Why do income property owners depreciate an appreciating asset? Because they leagally can? How many homeowners, including myself, deduct their interest expense from their taxable income? How
many small business owners run their lives through their companies and
convert personal (non business and therefore taxable) expenses into
business expenses? Legally? None. Go ahead and incorporate yourself, Mr. Wilson. It is cheap to do. Then I urge you to do what you think small business owners are doing. Don't be a coward, go ahead and enjoy the good life!
If conservatives really believe in the individual, why did the
Republicans push through so much corporate welfare? I said conservatives. Why did you bring up Republicans? Look at the most
recent example - the $700,000,000,000 bailout bill. It was stalled
until Republican congresspeople got their goodies - including a tax break for manufacturers of wooden arrows! Conservatives are proud of those who voted against the bailout. How many of your communist/Democrat brethren stood in its path?
There should be ZERO tax on corporations/companies. Hell, there should not be a federal income tax on individuals for that matter. Since we do however, a flat tax or national sales tax would be more palatable than what we currently have.
frank
October 27, 2008 - 18:27 ET by cocodrieYou, oo7, josh, and Ubercon in particular ask inane and irrelevant questions to confuse and destroy sensible discussion. y'all sound like four year olds - "Why does the sun shine in the daytime?" - "Why do the stars only come out at night?" - "How hugh is up?" "Where does the light go when we turn it off?"
Karma:
October 28, 2008 - 10:07 ET by j. frank wilsonOK - if profit is not an accounting opinion what is it?
We know that corporations can generate considerable positive cash flow and no profits. Of course most corporations pay taxes on their profits. The issue is that since the mid-1990's the tax code has been changed and changed, the government has doled out more and more goodies to specific industries (remember the airline bailout after 9/11 - boy, that sure worked out well, didn't it!) and the system has gotten completely out of hand.
Mr. Wilson, Does this
October 28, 2008 - 10:53 ET by KarmaMr. Wilson,
Does this help? Is your checking account balance an opinion? What would happen if your banks' opinion didn't agree with yours?
The system got completely out of hand with FDR. Socialism doesn't work. Trying to make it work, year after year, law after law, change after change, is futile. Miniscule federal government and returning power to the states is the cure.
BTW, why do most companies not pay taxes on their profit, if any?
Karma:
October 28, 2008 - 13:26 ET by j. frank wilsonDo you honestly compare a checking account balance with a corporate balance sheet or income statement? Do you use GAAP to balance your checkbook? I guess you'd decide to use the cash rather than the accrual method. But LIFO vs. FIFO? Accelerated vs. straight line depreciation? Capitalize vs. expense? Nope. Doesn't fly. No serious comparison.
Mr. Wilson, GAAP =
October 28, 2008 - 13:46 ET by KarmaMr. Wilson,
GAAP = Opinions? You're serious? Come on now, fes up, you're Obamas' money man, aren't you?
BTW, why do most companies not pay taxes on their profit, if any?
Karma:
October 28, 2008 - 14:24 ET by j. frank wilsonIs than an answer? That your check book comparison simply makes no sense?
Are you seriously going to tell me that GAAP does not require the person using it to form opinions and make decisions? Or that people do not (fairly and according to the rules) use GAAP to achieve pre-determined outcomes?
Do you have any idea what you're writing about?
Mr. Wilson, Is then an
October 28, 2008 - 14:51 ET by KarmaMr. Wilson,
Is then an answer? That accounting is based on opinion? What other kind of freakish ideas do you subscribe to? (skip that; it was a rhetorical question) Not wizardry; accounting. Accounting: the system of recording and summarizing business and financial transactions and analyzing, verifying, and reporting the results.
Do you want to keep avoiding the question or are you just not capable of answering...why do most companies not pay taxes on their profit, if any? Or do you need a linguist to explain the question to you?
Karma:
October 28, 2008 - 15:29 ET by j. frank wilsonOf course accounting is based on opinion. Do you know anything about GAAP? Do you think there are no decisions that must be made in utilizing it? Otherwise - why hire a CPA? Why not just use TurboTax (c) for corporations and be done with it?
It appears you have no real world knowledge of how business works. Perhaps you studied it years ago in school and are trying to recall dim memories of what you read or were told.
Meanwhile - you repeat a meaningless question. To the best of my knowledge most companies that show a profit in the US pay taxeon it. The problem is that most of them simply don't show a profit.
Mr. Wilson, It appears
October 28, 2008 - 16:04 ET by KarmaMr. Wilson,
It appears the only thing meaningless here are your inane responses to a very simple question that I, mistakenly, thought that even you could understand. Daddy obviously failed in many respects in regards to your upbringing. Honesty is critical.
To the best of my knowledge...- Mr. Wilson
That pretty well sums up the problem with you. In my honest profit, of course. :-)
Karma:
October 28, 2008 - 17:11 ET by j. frank wilsonOnce again - your comment is filled with nothing.
Keep thinking that balancing a checkbook is just the same as producing a corporate balance sheet and income statement.
And I sincerely hope you have no children so you won't pass on your sad, misinformation to anyone else.
Golly gee, Mr.
October 28, 2008 - 21:16 ET by KarmaGolly gee, Mr. Wilson.
Don't be so grumpy! Rest assured I have sown my seeds of freedom, independence and honesty. Maybe you'll have the pleasure of meeting my eldest someday. She's a psychiatrist. Take your problems up with someone like her who may be helpful. It's been intereseting. :)
"Profits are like a**holes; everybody has one." - my accountant
Karma
October 27, 2008 - 17:03 ET by livingfreeDumb Dumb-Without those Corporations there would be no Jobs get it. If I was a business owner taking all the risk, investing all the money I would expect to get a profit.
Maybe you don't comrade.
J. Frank, this one's for you...
October 27, 2008 - 11:15 ET by blooloo"People are losing their jobs, their homes, seeking their retirement
savings wiped out. And the idiots running the McCain Campaign are
absolutely out of touch with reality. " - J. Frank
You need to read this about Obama's victory party. They are already planning on spending $2 Million just for city services alone (police, fire, traffic control, etc...) and he hasn't even won yet. Pay particular attention to the 2nd paragraph where they state that the city could not afford it because they are having to lay off people... It's Obama to the rescue along with the DNC!!! Will you criticize them for their flagrant spending as readily as you will the RNC?
blooloo:
October 27, 2008 - 12:38 ET by j. frank wilsonIf I'd spent two years running for President and finally won, I'd have a big party too! Darn right!
Sen. McCain has a White House transition team, right? I don't think they are going to be very busy on Nov. 5th, but they are up and running right now. What's wrong with that?
I understand Sen. McCain has already announced he's not having a party on the evening of Nov. 4th. Personally, I can see why!
j. frank - so, on one hand
October 27, 2008 - 14:56 ET by bloolooj. frank - so, on one hand you say, "How dare they spend $150K on clothing! People are starving!"
BUT, on the other hand you say,
"Go ahead, spend $2 Million on a party! You deserve it!" (even though he hasn't won anything yet...) Really? That's how you feel?
Have another glass of KoolAid comrade. You've earned it...!
blooloo:
October 27, 2008 - 15:23 ET by j. frank wilsonPretty slow on the uptake, aren't you?
I never said "How dare they...?" I said we can call it what it is - stupid - without being sexist. Just as we can question Gov. Palin's credentials and experience to be President of these United States without being sexist.
This is still America. We are allowed to have an opinion - and that doesn't make it sexist or even racist. The RNC has run a very poor campaign - just as Sen. McCain has. Fact.
Hey frank...
October 27, 2008 - 16:30 ET by MightyMouthcan we question Obamas credentials without being racist? Or does that just work for dimocrats?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
This might have mattered if the media
October 27, 2008 - 10:59 ET by katiejanehad EVER expressed any dismay about the money spent on aggrandizing Obama's speaking setups. At least Palin can wear the clothes more than once - how many times can a candidate use styrofoam coluums?
MSM Bias
October 27, 2008 - 11:10 ET by BW222It's amazing this story received so much coverage in MSM and Obama's just-released radio tape is receiving so little. On second thought, it's not so amazing.
BW222
Fashion citation:
October 27, 2008 - 11:48 ET by CrashAs I recall, when Governor Palin first hit the spotlight, she was criticized on her "out of date" style.
Top Posted
October 27, 2008 - 16:28 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerI have posted nothing yet concerning Palin getting some clothes, I don't really consider it in issue if the President or Vice President gets some clothes. It is as much as a unimform as any other type of work; both the President and Vice President need to dress Presidential.
Now if we were talking about having a Jet and all the other items that Pelosi has that would be a different story.
I've posted the story now because of the clear strangeness of the media. Its not about her but about NY Times who thinks this is the most important story of the day.
The post http://www.jeremiahf...